K. K. Birla, J. - (1.) BOTH these F. A. F. Os. arise out of the same award given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) SRI Rajeshwar Prasad Tyagi was employed as Sub-Station Attendant in the Hydel Department Ghaziabad, U. P. At about 4.00 P.M. on 28-10-77, while he was going to attend to his duties, he met with an accident by Bus no. DHP 2470 driven by SRI Prakash respondent no. 2 owned by Delhi Transport Corporation and died on the spot Smt. Sheelawati is the widow and petitioners no. 2 to 5 are the minor daughters and sons of the deceased. They have preferred the claim. According to the claimants' case Sri Rajeshwar Prasad Tyagi was coming on the bycycle on the Patri of the road from the Meerut side while the bus was going towards Meerut side and the driver tried to overtake a Motorcycle by driving at high speed. In the process it hit the cycle and dragged the deceased and the cycle to some distance resulting in the death of Sri Rajeshwar Prasad Tyagi on the spot. The claimant filed a claim of Rs. 2,35,000/-. The Tribunal found the accident on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver. This finding has not been challenged before us. After considering the evidence and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal found that the amounts payable to each of the claimants would be as given below : 1. Smt Sheelawati Rs. 31610-5268=Rs. 26342.00 2. Km. ManjooRs. 12106-2017=Rs. 10089.00 3. Km. Baby Rs. 15442-2573-Rs. 12869.00 4. Master Titu Rs 15442-2573=Rs. 12869.00 5. Km. Anjoo Rs. 19612-3268 =Rs. 16344.00 Total Rs. 78513.00 He accordingly passed an award dated 21-5-80 granting these amounts along- with the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the judgment till the date of payment. Being aggrieved by this award the claimants have preferred F. A F. O. No. 573/80 and Delhi Transport Corporation F. A. F O. No. 673/1980. After taking into consideration what amount he would have got at the time of the retirement, the learned Tribunal held annual Income to be Rs. 5009.10. The family consisted of himself, his wife, unmarried minor daughters and unmarried minor son. He divided the amount by six. Thereby, according to the Tribunal, 5/6 Income was to be spent equally on each of the claimants (that is Rs. 834.00 per annum). He was further of the opinion that Km. Manju, Km. Baby, Km.Anju and Master Titu were to get the benefit for 9, 13, 18 years respectively. He further awarded Rs. 4000/- as marriage expenses for each child. According to him, Smt. Sheelawati Devi might have got the benefit for 24 years during the service of the deceased and for 12 and half years thereafter. He also awarded Rs. 600/- per claimants on another ground. The period for which each of the claimants were to be benefited in case the deceased remained alive has not been challenged nor the award of Rs. 4600/- per claimants on two counts as mentioned above has been challenged before us. According to the Corporation the amount of Insurance, gratuity, pension etc. should have also been taken into consideration and the compensation should have been reduced. This contention was not accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal reduced the l/6th of the compensation amount on account of lump sum payment. After calculating the compensation in the light of the above, the Tribunal found each of the claimants to be entitled to the amount as mentioned above.
(3.) IN F. A. F. O. No. 578/1980 preferred by the claimants, it has been contended that Smt. Sheelawati Devi, widow was deprived of the company of her husband and as such the amount by way of loss of consortium should have been granted Rs. 50,000/- has been claimed in the petition towards the same. The other contention was that the interest should have been awarded from the date of the petition and not from the date of judgment. The Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred as the Corporation) has challenged the award mainly on three grounds namely : firstly that the amount of insurance, gratuity, provident funds etc. should have been considered and the compensation amount' should have been accordingly reduced, secondly that the claimants would have spent half of the INcome on himself and as such the deducation of 1 /6th income only on that account is wrong and thirdly that atleast 1/3rd deduction should have made on account of lump-sum payment. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.;